(Palmerston) made a speech in that vein of forced jocularity with
which elderly gentlemen give the toast of the bridegroom at a wedding
breakfast.”--Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXII.
[148] Compare this with almost the identical expression in Mr. Bright’s
speech in the House of Commons of the 13th of March, for delivering
which Lord Palmerston jeered at him as “the honourable and _reverend_
gentleman.”
[149] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LII.
[150] “For if the hostilities continue, if the Powers, released from
all apprehension in Turkey, should be free either to pursue us on
the evacuated territory, or to employ all their disposable forces in
invading our European or Asiatic dominions, with a view to impose on
us conditions which could not be accepted, it is evident that the
demand made by Austria was that we should weaken ourselves morally and
materially by a sacrifice wholly useless.”--Count Nesselrode’s Despatch
to Count Buol Schauenstein of 29th of July, 1854.
[151] See Lord Clarendon’s Despatch to the Earl of Westmoreland, dated
the 22nd of July, 1854.
[152] France explained this by demanding in the official _Moniteur_
that the fleet of Russia in the Black Sea should be reduced in strength.
[153] Diplomatic Study of the Crimean War, Vol. II., p. 18.
[154] Orloff was sent by the Czar to extract from Austria a pledge
of absolute neutrality. The Austrian Emperor asked if the Czar would
promise not to cross the Danube or seize territory, and if he would
evacuate the Principalities when war was over. Orloff said “No.” The
Emperor then replied that Austria would preserve perfect freedom of
action. Baron de Bulberg failed at Berlin to extract a similar pledge
from Prussia.--Despatch of Lord Westmoreland to Lord Clarendon, dated
8th February, 1854. Eastern Papers.
[155] “Ministers are preparing for war; the quarrel has now become
an European quarrel and must have an European settlement. We ask for
20,000 more men for the army and navy; we propose to add £21,000,000 to
our expenditure, and is _this_ an occasion on which you should potter
over Blue-books?”--Sir James Graham’s speech, in reply to Mr. Layard,
in the House of Commons on the 17th of February, 1854.
[156] Writing to Mrs. Cobden about this speech, Cobden says, “No
enthusiasm of course; that I did not expect; but there was a feeling
of interest throughout the House which is not bumptious or warlike to
the extent I expected, and not disposed to be insolent to the ‘peace
party.’ In fact, I find many men in the Tory Party agreeing with me.
After I spoke, Molesworth took me aside and said he and Gladstone
thought I never spoke better.”--Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXII. If
the men who agreed with him privately had been bold enough to say so in
public, there would have been no invasion of the Crimea.
[157] Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G., by
Edwin Hodder, Vol. II., p. 465. Cassell and Co. (Limited). Palmerston
was chief of the War Party in the Cabinet. Lady Palmerston was Lord
Shaftesbury’s mother-in-law.
[158] Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXII.
[159] The history of its publication is as follows: On the 13th of
March Lord Derby drew the attention of the Peers (1) to “An Official
Answer of the Emperor of Russia to a speech of Lord John Russell in
the House of Commons,” published in the _St. Petersburg Journal_,
wherein it was alleged that the English Cabinet had been frankly told
at the outset what course the Czar desired to pursue in Turkey; (2)
to statements in the _Times_ to the effect that though an indignant
refusal had been Lord John’s answer, yet the Czar had in 1844 attempted
to gain over the Government of the day to his designs. Lord Derby
called for the production of this Secret Correspondence, and as
Russia, by her official reference to it, had virtually challenged its
publication, it was in due course laid before both Houses of Parliament.
[160] The English case against Russia was that the Czar persisted in
asserting an exceptional right of protecting the Greek Christians in
Turkey under existing treaties. In Lord John Russell’s despatch of 9th
of February, 1853, in which he expressed a disapproval of the Czar’s
overtures to Sir Hamilton Seymour, he counselled forbearance, and then
said: “To these cautions Her Majesty’s Government wish to add that, in
their view, it is essential that the Sultan should be advised to treat
his Christian subjects in conformity with the principles of equity
and religious freedom, which prevail generally among the enlightened
nations of Europe. The more the Turkish Government adopts the rules of
impartial law and equal administration, the less will the Emperor of
Russia find it necessary to apply that _exceptional protection_ which
His Imperial Majesty has found so burdensome and inconvenient, _though
no doubt prescribed by duty and sanctioned by Treaty_.”
[161] See _ante_, p. 582.
[162] Eastern Papers, Part VII., contain proofs of the deception
perpetrated by the Coalition Government on Parliament as to the extent
to which England might depend on the German States for support.
[163] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIII.
[164] An appeal to fear rarely influences German statesmen. In 1868,
during the debate in the Customs Parliament at Berlin, the Separatist
Party objected to the discussion of national politics, lest, as one of
them said, they might provoke an attack from France. Bismarck’s retort
was that “an appeal to fear had never yet found an echo in German
hearts.”--Lowe’s Life of Bismarck, Vol. I., p. 458.
[165] Lowe’s Life of Bismarck, Vol. I., p. 206 (Cassell and Co.).
[166] It is due to Lord Clarendon to say that in a letter to Prince
Albert (26th March) he expresses a shrewd suspicion of this danger.
But the Prince, whose authority on the secret diplomacy of Germany
no Cabinet Minister, except, perhaps, Palmerston, ever dared to
question, promptly silenced his suspicions. On the 27th the Prince
wrote to Clarendon, saying, “I don’t think that Austria has anything
to fear from Prussia or Germany if she were to take an active part in
the war against us.” That the Queen and her husband were mistaken or
misinformed is proved by Mr. Lowe in his Life of Prince Bismarck, Vol.
I., pp. 200, 202, and 203.
[167] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIII.
[168] He allowed for a force of 25,000 men at £50 a head, or a total of
£1,250,000.
[169] Other estimates besides those for 25,000 men had to be provided
for, _e.g._, extraordinary expenditure on the Navy, Ordnance, and
Commissariat Departments. In fact, the mere prospect of war had thus
added, not £1,250,000, but £4,307,000 to the estimates of the coming
year in the ordinary Budget _before_ war was declared.
[170] Their real objection was that the conversion scheme caused Mr.
Gladstone to take £8,000,000 from his Exchequer balances, which,
however, had been kept perniciously high. Had this money been in hand,
of course there would have been less need to levy a war tax. The
conversion scheme had resulted in a small loss from changes in the
Money Market, due to rumours of war and a bad harvest.
[171] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIII.
[172] Pitt was first called “the Heaven-born Minister” by the
loan-mongers of the City, because he tried to make war on loans instead
of taxes. In 1792 he had a war deficit of £4,500,000 to meet. He raised
a 4 per cent. loan in the City, for which they made him pay £4 3s. 4d.
per cent.; in 1794 he borrowed £11,000,000 at £4 10s. 9d.; in 1795,
£18,000,000 at £4 15s. 8d.; in 1796, £25,000,000 at £4 13s. 5d.; in
1797, £32,500,000 at £5 14s. 10d.; in 1798, £17,000,000 at £6 4s. 9d.,
and he had to give the usurers bonuses, commissions, and inducements
to subscribe, which compelled him to add £34,000,000 of capital to the
National Debt to get this £17,000,000. His system added £250,000,000
to our National Debt, for which the nation never really got a penny.
In 1797 Pitt, however, saw that the country must soon be drained of
its resources by the loan-mongers, and he made convulsive efforts to
escape from their clutches. He began to raise taxes to meet his war
expenditure and pay the principal and interest of his debts. He first
tried to raise £7,000,000, and only got £4,000,000 by assessed taxes.
In 1798 he returned to the charge, and increased the Income Tax by 40
per cent. That year the revenue was £23,100,000. In 1806, when he died,
he had raised it by successive turns of the screw to £50,900,000. In
1807 an addition of 10 per cent. to the Income Tax raised the revenue
to £59,300,000. Up to 1816 it fluctuated between £60,000,000 and
£70,000,000, but between 1806 and 1816 the war charges and the interest
on the Debt were all paid out of current revenue. In fact, after 1797
it is clear Pitt and his successors resolved to exact any sacrifices
from the people, rather than float war loans in the City.
[173] Lord Shaftesbury, in a letter to Lord Aberdeen, dated 22nd of
February, says that a conversation he held with the Prime Minister
on the subject had “terrified” him. “It implied,” writes Lord
Shaftesbury, “that the country had entered on a war which you could
so little justify to your own conscience as to be unwilling, nay,
almost unable, to advise the ordinance of public prayer for success
on the undertaking. Why, then, have we begun it? You asked whether
‘the English nation would be brought to pray for the Turks?’ Surely,
if they are brought to fight for them, they would be induced to pray
for them in a just quarrel.”--Life and Work of Lord Shaftesbury, by
Edwin Hodder, Vol. II., p. 466 (Cassell and Co.). See also Greville
Memoirs--Third Part (Longmans), 1887.
[174] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIV.
[175] Russia held the Sulina mouth of the Danube by the Treaty of
Adrianople, and, though she took toll of passing ships, had neglected
the channel, greatly to the hindrance of navigation.
[176] Dundonald would have been appointed instead of Napier, had it not
been that he insisted on destroying Cronstadt by an “infernal” machine
which he had invented. Greville Memoirs--Third Part, p. 136 (Longmans),
1887.
[177] Kinglake’s History of the Invasion of the Crimea, Vol. II., p.
249 and p. 407.
[178] “His (Mr. Kinglake’s) attempt to throw all the credit or blame of
the expedition to Sebastopol upon the Duke of Newcastle is a complete
delusion. His story about the sleepy Cabinet may be partially true,
but the plan of the expedition had been discussed by the Cabinet
at repeated sittings, and the despatch in question only embodied a
foregone conclusion.”--Letters of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, p. 426.
Sir George Lewis was Lord Clarendon’s brother-in-law, and Editor of the
_Edinburgh Review_. His letters, and the articles in the _Edinburgh_
on public affairs at this time, are of high authority. See also a very
conclusive answer to Mr. Kinglake by Sir Theodore Martin in a Note in
his Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LIV.
[179] In a letter to Sir Edmund Head (29th December, 1854), the
common-sense view of the case is pithily put by Sir George Cornewall
Lewis as follows: “The fact is that the Government were urged into
the Sebastopol adventure by popular clamour; that they undertook it
with an imperfect knowledge of the difficulties of the enterprise;
and that the military men anticipated that if the army could once be
landed the place would speedily fall. This delusion was shared by all
the world in September, and even October last; but now events have
dispelled the illusion, the people forget their own mistake, and visit
its consequences on the head of the War Minister.”--Sir G. C. Lewis’
Letters, p. 288.
[180] Mr. Kinglake gives an entertaining description of a conversation
between General Sir George Brown and Lord Raglan over the Ministerial
order. Brown told his chief that they were all so ignorant about the
Crimea that it was foolish to invade it; but that he had better obey,
for refusal would only lead to his dismissal.
[181] But for Mr. Roberts the expedition must have been abandoned till
the following spring. His services were contemptuously ignored, and he
died heart-broken by the bitter ingratitude of the Government. He was
an able officer--but without “interest.”
[182] The attack on the central redoubt by Sir G. Brown’s Light
Division was a confused rush by an armed mob. It failed because the
Duke of Cambridge, who led the First Division, did not bring up his
supports. But for the remonstrance of Sir Colin Campbell, one of his
Brigadiers, he would even have made his Guards ignominiously retire and
re-form at a critical moment in the advance, which would have spread
panic, and lost the battle. De Lacy Evans and Campbell were the only
commanders in this fight who seemed capable of handling troops in a
workmanlike manner. Colonels Hood of the Grenadiers, and Ainslie of the
93rd Highlanders, also displayed skill.
[183] It is a melancholy satisfaction that the French Prince Napoleon
proved himself to be as incapable as the English Royal Duke. He lost
a regiment of his Zouaves who, getting tired of him, went away into
the fray on their own account. One of Brown’s Brigadiers (Buller) also
lost himself, and spent most of the day with his men in hollow square,
waiting to receive imaginary cavalry.
[184] It is an amusing fact that Raglan’s van actually came on
Menschikoff’s rear, as the lines of march intersected, and that neither
General had the faintest idea of what the other was about.
[185] It may be pointed out that the works on the north side of the
town, where the citadel was, commanded those on the south side.
Raglan’s vaunted flank march had left the Russian garrison in the North
Town open and safe communication with their base, and their army of
observation in the field. He had given them ample time to make affluent
use of this advantage. It was, therefore, a moral certainty that if we
had taken the South Town after the bombardment of the 17th our position
would not have been tenable. Though Cathcart and Campbell would have
walked into it easily had they been allowed on the 25th of September,
the failure of the bombardment of the 17th of October was thus probably
a fortunate occurrence.
[186] The ships were also dreadfully _underhanded_--4,000 of their
fighting force being on shore with the army.
[187] It may not be quite fair to blame Lord Raglan too much for
this ridiculous manœuvre. At one time his partizans claimed for him
the honour of planning it. But Prince Albert ascribed it to Sir John
Burgoyne, and so did many others. Burgoyne’s own correspondence seems
to show that the Prince was right. (Lieutenant-Colonel Wrottesley’s
“Life and Correspondence of Sir John Burgoyne,” Vol. II., pp. 95-164.)
[188] Receiving heavy masses of cavalry in this fashion was but a
development of another piece of tactics which Campbell always used
“contrary to the regulations.” That was advancing in line--as at the
Alma--firing on dense masses of infantry all the time. This he learnt
from Sir J. Cameron, colonel of the 6th Regiment, in the Peninsula.
Oddly enough Cameron’s son commanded the Black Watch under Campbell in
the Crimea, and he, too, had, “contrary to regulations,” taught his
father’s tactics to his men. Colonel Hood, of the Grenadiers, had a
glimmering of this idea at the Alma. But he did not venture to advance
in line firing until the enemy’s column was demoralised. The Scottish
Regiments used the manœuvre for the purpose of demoralising the enemy.
But it should never be used except by troops of coarse nerve-fibre, in
perfect training, and whom their leader can hold in hand as in a vice.
[189] The responsibility for this fearful butchery has been cast on
Lord Lucan. He certainly lacked moral courage in obeying an order
which nobody but a maniac would, in the circumstances, have issued.
But Nolan’s insinuation that Lucan was afraid to attack forced the
general’s hand. Nolan was a brave man, with a crazy fad as to the
capacity of English cavalry to go anywhere and do anything. He
had written a book to show that they could--and he was bitterly
disappointed because the campaign had not been conducted so as to
illustrate by practical experiments the soundness of his views. He took
it on himself to ride in advance of the Brigade, with which he had
nothing to do, and excite the men by voice and gesture, as if their own
officers, who were personally responsible for their lives, were not fit
to lead them. This would indicate that he was one of those meddlesome
_aides-de-camp_, whose interference with operations in the field
renders them the pest of British armies.
[190] The success of the Heavy Brigade was due to Scarlett attacking
in line, when, to his surprise, he found he was riding with a slender
force against enormous masses of Russian cavalry, and to the Russians
perpetrating the atrocious blunder of halting to receive the fierce
onset of the Scottish and Irish horsemen. Only a third of the Light
Brigade were rescued from the “valley of death,” and they owe their
lives to a brilliant and impetuous charge which a fiery squadron of
French _Chasseurs d’Afrique_ made on a Russian battery, that was
cutting our troopers to pieces during their retreat.
[191] History of England, Vol. V., p. 125.
[192] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., p. 424.
[193] Stratford de Redcliffe was now for peace, because he found the
war substituting French for Russian influence at Constantinople, and
of the two he preferred the latter.--Greville Memoirs, Third Part
(Longmans), 1887.
[194] The Croker Papers, Vol. III., p. 320. Lyndhurst, long after
delivering his ferocious speech demanding that Sebastopol should be
razed to the ground, had written to Croker for advice. “The political
world is in a most complicated state,” says Lyndhurst in this letter,
“and I feel quite at sea.”
[195] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LVII.
[196] One of the most appalling cases was the death of Lord Jocelyn in
Lady Palmerston’s drawing-room.
[197] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LVIII.
[198] Mr. Herbert’s policy was amply vindicated. The experiment
succeeded so well that Miss Stanley, sister of the late Dean Stanley,
was sent out afterwards with forty-seven nurses to reinforce Miss
Nightingale’s staff.
[199] See a lively correspondence between Sir J. Graham and John Wilson
Croker on this subject. Graham showed that the Admiralty was not to
blame, but urged in excuse of “the poor idiot,” as Croker called him,
who blundered at Balaclava, that “this was the first time coffee had
ever been issued to a British army on foreign service.”--Croker Papers,
Vol. III., p. 328.
[200] Financial Secretary to the War Office is now the name of this
post.
[201] This change was brought about by Russell rudely turning out Lord
Granville to make room for himself, and dismissing Mr. Strutt from
the Duchy of Lancaster to make room for Lord Granville. Strutt got a
Peerage as Lord Belper. Russell threatened to break up the Ministry if
he did not get the Presidency of the Council, although there was no
precedent--except a doubtful one in Henry VIII.’s reign--for appointing
a commoner to the office. The Duke of Bedford told Mr. Greville that
Lord John, being poor, was now determined to get an office carrying
a high salary. The Duke had met his expenses, but was growing more
miserly every day his colossal fortune was accumulating, and, says Mr.
Greville, “he falls in very readily with his brother’s notion of taking
an office for the sake of its emoluments.”--Greville Memoirs--Third
Part, Vol. I., p. 148 (Longmans), 1887.
[202] “Whatever may be the qualities of different Ministers, I am
the bond by which they are united together. That once destroyed, the
whole fabric falls.”--Letter of Lord Aberdeen to John Wilson Croker,
explaining why the factions concentrated their hostility on him
personally.--The Croker Papers, Vol. III., p. 348.
[203] Evelyn Ashley’s Life of Palmerston, Vol. II., p. 80.
[204] Palmerston wanted Lord Shaftesbury to be Chancellor of the
Duchy. He had to withdraw his offer of the post, and in this letter
Lady Palmerston explains why.--Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of
Shaftesbury, K.G., by Edwin Hodder, Vol. II., p. 493 (Cassell and Co.).
[205] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 8.
[206] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXI.
[207] The opposition of the Peelites to the Committee on grounds of
high policy and constitutional legality was soon justified. “Lord
Stanley,” says Lord Malmesbury on the 3rd of March, “writes that Louis
Napoleon objects strongly to the Committee of Inquiry into the War, and
says if it takes place, though his army will still act on the same side
as ours, it can no longer do so along with it. He is evidently alarmed
at the laches of his own Ministers and generals being shown up to
Europe and endangering his position.”--Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol.
II., p. 11. Little wonder that the investigation was “incomplete” and
“inconclusive.”
[208] Mr. Sidney Herbert succeeded Sir George Grey in this office when
Palmerston reorganised the Coalition. Mr. Herbert went out with the
Peelites a fortnight after the new Ministry was formed.
[209] Hansard, Vol. CXXXVIII., 1075.
[210] This was, of course, discussing and coming to a unanimous
agreement with Russia at the very outset on the Second Point--the
navigation of the Danube. This was the point in which Austria had had
a vital interest. If it had been kept open to the last, she might have
been more zealous in overcoming the difficulties as to the Third Point
which wrecked the Conference.
[211] The proof of this is as follows: (1) The Turks would have taken
the Austrian compromise, which, by the way, was the development of
a suggestion made by the French Envoy, as the basis of a feasible
plan for giving effect to the Third Point. (2) Lord John Russell--the
most violent and bellicose of the anti-Russian Ministers--was in
favour of it. (3) The position of Russia in the matter was officially
misrepresented to the English people. Russia said her defeats were not
such as to justify her as a Great Power in letting the Allies _force_
on her a reduction of her Black Sea fleet. But she had no objection
to any plan limiting her preponderance if it sprang from mutual
negotiation between her and Turkey--acting as principals on an _equal
footing_--to establish, by _mutual consent_ a naval equilibrium in the
Black Sea. (4) She did not absolutely exclude the idea of reducing her
fleet as was falsely stated, not only in the English press, but in
Parliament. Article 2 of Count Buol’s compromise provided that Turkey
and Russia should “propose by common agreement to the Conference the
effective _equality_ of the naval forces which the two coast Powers
will keep up in the Black Sea, and which shall _not exceed the actual
number of Russian ships afloat in that Sea_.” (See Annual Register,
Vol. XCVII., pp. 214-217.) The use of the word “exceed” shows that
the Article provided a _maximum_ limit--not a minimum. It was simply
foolish to argue, as representatives of the Government did, that
negotiations for peace had to be abandoned because Russia refused to
accept a practical and reasonable plan for preventing her from having
more ships than Turkey in the Black Sea. The statement of facts on this
subject by Sir T. Martin in Chap. LXIII. of his Life of the Prince
Consort is as misleading as Mr. Spencer Walpole’s account of the
Austrian Compromise (History of England, Vol. V., p. 135). Mr. Walpole
says that Count Buol’s proposal was one “under which any addition to
the Russian Fleet might be followed by the admission of a corresponding
number of war vessels of the Allies into the Euxine.” This is not a
correct summary of Article 2 of the Compromise.
[212] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXIII.
[213] “If,” writes Prince Albert in a Memorandum dated 3rd of May,
1855, “Austria, Prussia, and Germany will give the diplomatic guarantee
for the future which I have here detailed, we shall consider this an
equivalent for the material guarantee sought for in the limitation
of the Russian Fleet.”--Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap.
LXIII. But the odd thing to note is, that the Prince was one of those
responsible, not perhaps for suspending, but for finally breaking
up the Conference of Vienna, that had already adopted the principle
of his plan. He and the Queen ignored the fact that it was already
embodied in the Memorandum agreed to by the Conference, for giving
effect to Ali Pasha’s project for more completely connecting Turkey
with “the European equilibrium.” The Queen first coerced--for her
note to Clarendon was a coercive instrument--Palmerston to abandon
negotiations in Conference, because Russia would not submit to a
humiliating material guarantee. Then Prince Albert suggests as a
substitute for that a diplomatic guarantee, which Russia had already
accepted, and which was a far less effective protection to Turkey than
the Austrian compromise which the Queen imperiously condemned. The only
original point in the Prince’s plan is the inclusion of Prussia. She
had been excluded from the Conference in deference to the prejudices
of those who hated peace negotiations, and who declared that she was a
mendacious slave of the Czar.
[214] And yet on the day before the Prince wrote to Aberdeen he
says, in a letter to Stockmar:--“The Vienna Conferences, which it
would have been better to have left open, must now be closed, if
only to _get the Ministry rest in Parliament_. Oh, Oxenstiern! Oh,
Oxenstiern!”--Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXIV.
[215] Mr. Sidney Herbert was another Peelite who resisted Prince
Albert’s intimidation.
[216] Canrobert’s neglect to seize the Mamelon Hill before the Russians
crept into it on the 9th of March and fortified it, was one of the
fatal blunders that protracted the siege.
[217] Lord Malmesbury records a conversation in his Diary with Persigny
on this point. “Persigny strongly for peace, and says France is all for
it.... He says, if the Emperor is to go to the Crimea, there must be
peace at any price to prevent it. If not, the war ought to go on; but
if the French army is lost then there will be a revolution.”--Memoirs
of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 16.
[218] The War, by W. H. Russell, p. 498. London: Routledge and Co.,
1855.
[219] Napoleon III. was abjectly ignorant of military geography. At
the council of 1854, said Persigny to Lord Malmesbury, his Majesty
“announced the attack on Baltic.” Persigny asked if he meant Cronstadt.
“No, of course not, it would require 100,000 men, _cavalry_ included,”
said the Emperor, loftily. “But,” replied Persigny, “Cronstadt is an
island.” “No, it is not,” said the Emperor, as he went for a map.
Everything, said Persigny, was done with the same ignorance and
carelessness. Yet it was a campaign--devised by this charlatan against
the opinion of his best officers, that Lord Raglan, according to Sir T.
Martin, approved! See Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 15.
[220] Reminiscences and opinions of Sir F. H. Doyle (Longmans, 1886),
p. 414. There was a terrible snow storm in Devonshire this year. It was
made memorable by the footmarks of some creature which nobody could
identify. These created a sort of panic in the West of England, for the
people thought that the devil was abroad among them.
[221] Letters of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, p. 295. His additional
taxes were, (1), 3s. per cwt. on sugar; (2), 1d. per pound on coffee,
raising the duty from 3d. to 4d.; (3), 3d. per pound on tea, raising
the duty from 1s. 6d. to 1s 9d.; (4), equalisation of duty on Scotch
and English spirits, bringing the former from 6s. to 7s. 10d. per
gallon; (5), increase of duty on Irish spirits from 4s. to 6s; (6),
increase of 2d. on Income Tax, raising it from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 4d. in
the £.
[222] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXI. It was this
letter that ultimately led to the founding of Netley Hospital.
[223] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXIII.
[224] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 24.
[225] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 12. Martin’s Life of the
Prince Consort, Chap. LXII.
[226] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 18. See also _Times_,
17th of April, 1855.
[227] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII.
[228] Ducos was personally hostile to England, though he pretended to
be in favour of the alliance. Lord Malmesbury says that he and General
Changarnier were the authors of a plan in 1851 for a piratical descent
on the Isle of Wight, and for seizing the Queen’s person at Osborne.
See Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. I., pp. 360 and 396. General
Cavaignac also thought at the time such a plan to be feasible in the
event of a war with England.
[229] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII.
[230] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 19.
[231] It was said to be composed by his mother, Queen Hortense.
[232] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII.
[233] Vast numbers had been unable to find seats--in fact, as much
as £100 was given for a box. When the curtain rose, crowds of ladies
and gentlemen in evening dress were seen packed closely together
at the back of the stage behind the artists--a curious revival of
the old practice, in virtue of which persons of quality and rank
frequented this part of the house in preference to any other. Jenny Ney
played “Leonora.” It was her first performance on the English stage.
Tamberlik, Formes, Tagliafico, and Luchesi took the male parts.
[234] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII.
[235] No account of the Memorandum is given by Sir T. Martin, and
probably it was a ceremonial rather than a serious document.
[236] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 20.
[237] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXII.
[238] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXV.
[239] This resort to the dreaded instruments of “personal Government”
and “Court intrigue” by Palmerston was adopted after diplomatic means
had failed. Mr. Greville, in the Third Part of his “Journal,” gives an
amusing description of how we touted for a Portuguese alliance in these
days.
[240] It is not generally known that “Old Jérôme” really caused
the Emperor to abandon his intention of going to the Crimea. Every
argument pressed by his Ministers and the Queen failed to shake his
determination. Part of his plan was to make Jérôme not Regent, but
Chief of the Council of Ministers in his absence. The Ministers
artfully persuaded Jérôme, who was a vain man, to refuse this office
unless he were vested with the same despotic power as the Emperor.
This frightened the Emperor, and he immediately gave up his Crimean
expedition. See a conversation between Lord Cowley and Mr. Greville in
the Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 263 (Longmans), 1887.
[241] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I, pp. 283-286.
[242] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVII.
[243] They crossed over from France on the 28th of August. Mr. Greville
says, “While they were in the yacht crossing over, Prince Albert
had told him (Clarendon) that there was not a word of truth in the
prevailing report and belief that the young Prince of Prussia and the
Princess Royal are _fiancés_, that nothing had ever passed between
the parents on the subject, and that the union never would take place
unless the children should become attached to each other.”--Greville
Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 287. On the 13th of September,
however, Prince Albert writes to Stockmar, saying, “I have received a
very friendly letter from the Princess of Prussia.” In this letter the
Princess (now Empress of Germany) intimated the fact that her son came
with the consent of his parents and the King of Prussia to sue for the
hand of the Princess Royal.
[244] The Crown Prince of Germany--A Diary. London (Sampson Low), 1886.
[245] “The Officer in command is directed to arrange times so that
the Prince may have ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with
such various matters as horseshoeing, fencing, vaulting, limbering
and unlimbering guns, and stable work, as well as the routine of
lessons and singing in the schools.”--Extract from Von Griesheim’s
Instructions. The Crown Prince of Germany--A Diary, p. 24.
[246] The Crown Prince of Germany--A Diary, p. 28.
[247] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVIII.
[248] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 37.
[249] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 38.
[250] It is now known that Cavour suggested that Austria might be asked
to retire from that part of Papal territory which she occupied.
[251] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, p. 303.
[252] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol II., p. 38.
[253] “Exclusive of officers who have come back by reason of wounds,
sickness, or promotion to the depôt battalions, only thirty-three out
of an army of 52,000 men have come home on private affairs.”--Letter
of Prince Albert to the Prince of Prussia. Martin’s Life of the Prince
Consort, Chap. LXIX.
[254] See a curious letter on this subject from Colonel Hope, V.C., in
the _Daily Chronicle_ of 14th September, 1886, and a note appended to
it from the pen of the Editor of that newspaper.
[255] Simpson was bitterly blamed for not asking Campbell’s Division
of Guards and Highlanders, who were picked and seasoned soldiers, to
assault in the first instance. Campbell, however, though he often
exacted cruel sacrifices from his men, was parsimonious of blood, and
it was said in the camp that he refused to attack till he had time to
make the necessary preparations. Then he observed, grimly, he would
not “attack, but ‘tak’ he Redan.” Codrington seems to have imagined
that there was no need for all this caution. He attacked, but did
not take, the fortress; in fact, to take it on his plan was an utter
impossibility.
[256] That was partly due to the fact that our trenches were 200 yards
from the Redan. This space was enfiladed by a murderous fire when
crossed by the stormers. The French, 20,000 strong, were only 20 yards
from the Malakoff. Simpson’s excuse for hastening the attack instead of
pushing the trenches closer was that every day the French were losing
200 and we 60 men in the trenches.
[257] The Duke of Newcastle, who had gone to the seat of war to examine
affairs on the spot, in a letter to Clarendon, says that Simpson seemed
“never to be doing but always mooning. He has no plan, no opinion, no
hope but from the chapter of accidents.” He thought Pélissier just
as incompetent. “I believe,” he adds, “Pélissier’s officers have no
confidence in him, and I know his soldiers dislike him.” Martin’s Life
of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVII. The Sardinian De La Marmora was the
only one of the Allied Commanders-in-Chief who had any marked ability.
[258] So the Russians afterwards said. This plan was proposed by Sir E.
Lyons, but Pélissier laughed scornfully in his face when he suggested
it, and poor Simpson, as usual, concurred with Pélissier.
[259] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVIII.
[260] Evelyn Ashley’s Life of Lord Palmerston, Vol. II., p. 322.
[261] The excuse for the Franco-Austrian intrigue was that the
rejection of the terms by Russia bound Austria to join France and
England in going on with the war. But of course Austria had taken
pains to find out what terms Russia would accept before she gave her
pledge, so that she never had the remotest intention of fighting on
our side. As for the terms they were, as Mr. Greville puts it, but a
second edition of the proposals which we had rejected at the Vienna
Conference. There was, says Mr. Greville, this difference: “while on
the last occasion the Emperor knocked under to us and reluctantly
agreed to go on with the war, he is now determined to go on with it no
longer, and requires that we should defer to his wishes.”--Greville
Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 297.
[262] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXVIII.
[263] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 310.
[264] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. I., p. 315.
[265] Sir G. C. Lewis’s Letters, p. 309.
[266] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 37.
[267] Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXX. Sir Theodore, when he
penned this, had not seen Mr. Disraeli’s cynical letter to Lord
Malmesbury, otherwise he would probably not have added “such generosity
among statesmen may always be counted on as a matter of course.”
[268] This was a nickname which Serjeant Hayes had stuck to Parke
on account of his prejudice in favour of fossilised forms and
precedents.--Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 388.
[269] Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 340.
[270] Mr. Babbage, Dr. Lyon Playfair, and Sir R. Murchison, it was
said, were to be the first batch of life scientific peers.
[271] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 51.
[272] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 43.
[273] Mr. Greville, writing on March 9, says, “Called on Achille Fould,
who introduced me to Magne, Minister of Finance, said to be a great
rogue. Everything here is intrigue and jobbery, and I am told there is
a sort of gang, of which Morny is the chief, who all combine for their
own purpose and advantage: Morny, Fould, Magne, and Rouher, Minister of
Commerce. They now want to get out Billault, Minister of the Interior,
whom they cannot entirely manage, and that minister is necessary to
them on account of the railways, which are under his management.”
Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 31. At a party at Lord
Holland’s house in Paris, where a great many aristocratic ladies were
present, Mr. Greville says that when MM. de Flahault and Morny were
announced, “the women all jumped up like a covey of partridges and
walked out of the room, without taking any notice of the men.”
[274] The Treaty of Paris was signed on Sunday, March 30. Each of the
fourteen plenipotentiaries originally intended to keep the pen with
which he signed it as a _memento_ of the occasion. They, however,
yielded to the request of the Empress Eugenie, who begged that only one
pen should be used, which should be retained by her as a souvenir. Only
one was accordingly used. It was a quill plucked from an eagle’s wing,
and richly mounted with gold and jewels.
[275] In 1870 the neutrality of the Black Sea was abandoned--Russia
having declared she would no longer respect the Treaty on that point.
After the last Russo-Turkish war, Russia took back Bessarabia. The
“Declarations,” in fact, are the only portions of the Treaty that
remain in force.
[276] History of England, Vol. V., p. 143.
[277] Correspondence of A. de Tocqueville with Mr. Nassau Senior, Vol.
II., pp. 99, 101.
[278] This refers to Lord Malmesbury’s attack in the House of Lords on
the Treaty of Peace.
[279] Continuing a year after this, Lord Malmesbury records his
impressions of a conversation with Lady Ely on the famous “happy
family” dinner of 1856. He says, “It looks as if her Majesty made up
the dinner of these discordant materials for fun, and, from the same
_malice_, made me take Lady Clarendon to dinner, as it was only two
days after I had attacked Lord Clarendon in the House of Lords, and
Lady Clarendon would not speak to me at first, but I ended by making
her laugh. The Queen, who was opposite, was highly amused, and could
hardly help laughing when Lady Clarendon at first would not answer
me.”--Memoirs of an ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 67.
[280] Nobody regretted this, for they created a host of highly-paid
place-holders. Mr. Disraeli declared that these measures were at first
supposed to be an ingenious means of compensating Ireland for the
failure of the Tipperary Bank.
[281] Greville Memoirs, Third Part. Vol. II., pp. 42-45.
[282] A few days before this event, on the 10th inst., the Royal
Nursery was robbed. The Royal Household is, of course, under the
control of the Lord Steward. One of his sub-departments is called “The
Silver Pantry,” which has three yeomen, one groom, and six assistants
attached to it. Yet, when the nursery plate had to be sent to Windsor,
these gorgeous functionaries, with their staff of porters, horses,
grooms, and carts, could not condescend to convey it. It was trusted
to a common carrier, who unhappily, when on his way, stopped at a
public-house for refreshments. He and his men were “only absent for
five minutes,” but in that time a light spring cart had driven up to
the carrier’s waggon, and when it drove away, the box containing the
Royal nursery plate had vanished. The plate chest was found in Bonner’s
Fields containing everything but the bullion. The knife-blades and
packing, which latter consisted of women’s dresses, were found, but the
plate was never traced.
[283] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXII.
[284] De Lacy Evans’ proposal was referred to a mixed Commission of
civilians and military men.
[285] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXII.
[286] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 49.
[287] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXII.
[288] When the frontier was drawn, Count Orloff said to Lord Clarendon
that he should take it as a favour if he would draw it a little
farther south so as to include Bolgrad, which was the capital of some
Russian military colonies in which the Czar was greatly interested.
This was done as a matter of courtesy to the Czar, Orloff pointing to
the position of Bolgrad on the map--a French map--and showing that
it was such a long way from Lake Jalpuk, that the concession did not
give Russia access to a Moldavian lake on which she might, perchance,
one day build a threatening flotilla. After the Treaty was signed,
it turned out that the place marked as Bolgrad on the French map was
really Tabak, and that Bolgrad was actually far to the south of it, on
the northern shore of Lake Jalpuk. The Russians therefore, insisting
on the letter of the Treaty, claimed Bolgrad, on the left shore of the
lake, leaving the right shore to Moldavia.
[289] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 50.
[290] Lowe’s Bismarck, Vol. I., p. 218.
[291] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXIII.
[292] The French Emperor was pledged to support Russia against us. But
after his return from Biarritz, he found political parties were using
his disagreement with England to weaken the Anglo-French alliance, and
discredit his foreign policy. The secret history of the transaction,
however, was not creditable to Palmerstonian diplomacy. Lord Malmesbury
writes on the 21st of November, “Persigny told me Walewski is in
disgrace. The difficulty about Bolgrad and the Isle of Serpents arises
from the Emperor having been entrapped into a promise by the Russians;
but Persigny has suggested a solution, which has been accepted by the
Emperor and our Government, namely, a Congress, which is to assemble,
into which Sardinia is to be admitted, _on condition of voting against
Russia_. Austria goes with England, and Prussia is of course excluded.
This gives England a majority, and the Emperor an excuse for giving
way.”--Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II, p. 53. Lord Clarendon, had,
up till the beginning of December, refused to submit the dispute to a
Congress, for the point which Russia raised about Bolgrad was simply
a point of obvious chicanery which it was beneath the dignity of
England to debate. Lord Palmerston and he yielded, however, and, as Mr.
Greville says scornfully, by “this dodge saved us.”--Greville Memoirs,
Third Part, Vol. II., p. 68.
[293] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 55.
[294] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 58. See also Greville
Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 69.
[295] The Duke of Beaufort and eighty Members of the Lower House,
however, threatened to leave the Party if places in a Tory Government
were given to the Peelites.--Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 57.
[296] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXV.
[297] On the estimate of expenditure and revenue for 1856-1857 there
was a deficit of £10,000,000. To meet this Sir George Lewis had
borrowed £7,499,000, and he had raised £1,000,000 in Exchequer Bills.
The total receipts from all sources, said Sir George Lewis in his
Statement (_Annual Register_, Vol. XCIX., p. 29), would, when the
financial year closed, be £79,384,000, and the expenditure £78,000,000,
leaving a surplus of £1,384,000. This was a wrong calculation. The net
income of the year was £75,569,575, or, after deductions, £72,963,151,
showing a deficit on the expenditure of the year of £3,254,604. For
the coming year, 1857-1858, Sir George estimated his expenditure at
£63,224,000, to which £2,000,000 had to be added for the service of war
loans. The revenue he estimated at £66,365,000; so that he expected a
surplus of £891,000.
[298] Quite apart from the cost of the Crimean War, Mr. Gladstone
showed that £6,000,000 had been added to the _ordinary_ expenditure of
the country during the four years ending 1856-1857.
[299] Of course, Lord Beaconsfield before he died educated the Foreign
Office up to the truth, which is, that “the key of India” is held
in London--and that the defensible gates of India are those on our
frontier which we can protect by our arms. But the amazing thing is
that when the Foreign Office _did_ believe that Herat was the “key of
India,” they never would let it be held by a Power which, like Persia,
was strong enough to keep it safe with British help. Persia was the
natural ally of England against Russia. But every effort of the Indian
Government to conciliate Persia has been thwarted by the Foreign
Office. Since we abandoned her for the sake of the Russian alliance
against Napoleon I., the English Foreign Office has exhausted the
resources of its diplomacy in betraying, browbeating, and irritating
her. And yet it is a fact, that without the goodwill of Persia,
which enabled Russia to draw supplies from “the golden province of
Khorassan,” Russia could never have marched from the Caspian to the
gates of Merv.
[300] Correspondence respecting relations with Persia, Parliamentary
Papers, 1857, pp. 21-39.
[301] This story of diplomatic blundering is told in the speeches of
Mr. Layard and Lord Palmerston. Hansard, Vol. CXL., pp. 1717-1722.
[302] Papers respecting Persia, p. 211.
[303] India under Lord Canning, by the Duke of Argyll, p. 72. See also
21 and 22 Vict., c. 106, Section 55. Lord Beaconsfield made another
attempt to evade this section by bringing Indian troops to Malta during
the Russo-Turkish War in 1877.
[304] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 93.
[305] Life of Cobden, Chap. XXIV.
[306] The vote was 247 for, and 263 against, the Ministry. See Cobden’s
Speeches, Vol. II., pp. 121-156, for his indictment.
[307] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 63. Mr. Greville declares
that Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had “made up their minds to coalesce
with Gladstone and the Peelites on the first opportunity.”--Greville
Memoirs, Third Part. Vol. II., p. 93. Lord Malmesbury says that at
a private meeting of the Tory Party on the 4th of March, Lord Derby
denied that he had coalesced with Mr. Gladstone, but refused to be
dictated to by any member of the party as to “the course he should
pursue with regard to any political personages whatever,” a declaration
which was loudly cheered. The general opinion was that such a
coalition, though the Tory leaders favoured it, would have split up the
Tory Party.
[308] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 64. Note that the
attitude of the Peelites to the Tory Party curiously resembled that of
the Liberal Unionists in 1887.
[309] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., from 1814 to 1844.
Edited by Henry E. Carlisle. 2 Vols. London, Murray, 1886.
[310] Life of Cobden, Chap. XXIV.
[311] Annual Summary of the _Times_ for 1857. On the 24th of February,
1858, the Tories formed, Lord Derby’s second Government.
[312] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 99.
[313] Lord Derby had shrunk from carrying on the Crimean War when Lord
Aberdeen resigned.
[314] Even new Tory candidates, when they saw how the current of public
opinion was setting, began to beg support by saying that if they had
been in the House when the China vote was taken, they would have voted
for Lord Palmerston.--See Greville Memoirs, Vol. II., p. 100.
[315] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol. I., pp. 312, 313.
[316] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXV. On the 5th of
March, 1858, he writes to Stockmar:--“Lord Palmerston’s sudden decline
in popularity was a remarkable phenomenon.”--Martin’s Life of the
Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXIV.
[317] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 70.
[318] This was one of the first recorded cases of “obstruction” in the
modern sense of the word. Mr. Parnell used, at one time, to justify
his tactics by citing as a precedent Mr. Gladstone’s opposition to the
Divorce Bill.
[319] That no such distinction should be made is the view which seems
to be gaining ground now. The French Chamber adopted it in their
Divorce Bill of 1886, and it has been adopted in the law of Scotland,
where, as in France, paramours are not permitted to marry after divorce
is granted. In England the marriage of paramours, outside the forbidden
degrees of affinity and consanguinity, strongly condemned by Bishop
Wilberforce in the debates on the Divorce Bill, is permissible. Though,
as a concession to Wilberforce and his followers, it was enacted that a
clergyman might refuse to perform the ceremony, the concession did not
satisfy anybody.--See Life of Wilberforce, Vol. II., pp. 343-347.
[320] Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 351.
[321] Life of Lord Campbell, Vol. II., p. 353.
[322] Greville Memoirs, Third Part, Vol. II., p. 3.
[323] This dispute was settled by a Conference which met at Paris
on 5th March, 1857, France, Austria, England, and Russia being
represented, Prussia and Switzerland being occasionally admitted with
a consultative voice. Frederick William IV. resigned all his rights
to Neufchâtel for a pecuniary indemnity, which he generously refused
afterwards to take, and the royalist prisoners were set free. The
severance of this province was as great an advantage to Prussia, as the
separation of Hanover was to England.
[324] France and Sardinia would have made an Austrian occupation of
the Principalities ground for demanding, by way of compensation, the
retirement of Austria from Northern Italy.
[325] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., pp. 78, 79.
[326] Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, Vol. II., p. 78.
[327] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXIX.
[328] Sleeman’s Tour in Oudh, Vol. II., p. 353.
[329] Oudh Blue Book, p. 46.
[330] Oudh Blue Book, p. 235.
[331] If we go behind the facts and pretexts of the official case we
can easily discern better though unstated reasons for the annexation of
Oudh. After the annexation of Scinde and the conquest of the Punjab,
Oudh was left protruding into British territory, so as to cut it into
two parts. Oudh was in our way, and it was therefore taken.
[332] The History of India, by Meadows Taylor, p. 710.
[333] Curiously Mr. Cobden was among the few Englishmen who both
knew and cared. In a letter to Mr. Bright, dated the 24th of August,
1857, he says, “From the moment that I had satisfied myself that a
feeling of alienation was constantly increasing with both Natives and
the English--we had some striking evidence to this effect before our
Committee in 1853--I made up my mind that it must end in trouble sooner
or later.”--Morley’s Life of Cobden, Chap. XXV.
[334] Meadows Taylor’s History of India, p. 713.
[335] India under Lord Dalhousie, by the Duke of Argyll, pp. 57-60.
Sir J. Kaye says that the Indian army consisted, in round numbers, of
300,000 men, of whom 40,000 were Europeans.--Kaye’s Sepoy War, Vol. I.,
p. 341. When Lord Canning reached India the Native army, as a matter of
fact, consisted of 233,000, the Europeans of 45,000 men.
[336] Now we maintain in India one English to every two Native
soldiers. Dalhousie maintained one English to every five Native
soldiers.
[337] See on this curious subject Kaye’s Sepoy War, Vol. I., and
Appendix, p. 619.
[338] “The Mutiny would perhaps never have occurred if British
officers, turning themselves into missionaries, had not fostered
the notion that the Company was anxious to convert its subjects to
Christianity.”--Walpole’s History of England, Vol. V., p. 430.
[339] Holmes’ Indian Mutiny, p. 82. India under Lord Canning, by the
Duke of Argyll, p. 77.
[340] Parliamentary Papers. Mutinies in the East Indies, p. 1 _et seq._
[341] Meadows Taylor’s History of India, p. 720.
[342] Anson first heard of the outbreak at Simla, on the 12th of May.
He was at Umballa on the 15th. On the 27th he died of cholera at
Kurnaul.
[343] Lawrence himself says modestly, in a letter to Lord Dalhousie
(June 14th, 1858): “To Nicholson, Alec Taylor, of the Engineers, and
Neville Chamberlain, the real merit of our success is due.” But this
does some injustice to Colonel Baird Smith, who was Taylor’s chief, and
who deserves credit for forcing Wilson on to attack the city.
[344] Life of Lord Lawrence, by R. Bosworth Smith, M.A., Vol. II., p.
30.
[345] _Quarterly Review_ for April, 1883.
[346] “Whilst the siege was in progress, Wilson had, “more than
once,” says Nicholson, in one of his letters to Lawrence, spoken of
withdrawing the guns. Nicholson, who was the Roland and Hotspur of
the war, and Lawrence’s trustiest lieutenant, says of Wilson, “Had
he carried out his threat I was quite prepared to have appealed to
the army to set him aside and elect a successor.” Three days after
penning that letter this fiery Bersekir fell mortally wounded, leading
the stormers of the Cashmere Bastion. Wilson, feeling it difficult to
maintain the occupation of the city, wanted to withdraw. When this was
communicated to Nicholson, he turned on his death-bed, convulsed with
passion, and exclaimed, “Thank God, I have yet strength enough to shoot
that man!”
[347] Life of Lord Lawrence, by R. Bosworth Smith, M.A., Vol. II., p.
225.
[348] The king died in prison three months afterwards. Hodson’s defence
was that he feared a rescue.
[349] Lord Canning himself has described their conduct--especially
that of the terror-stricken officers, “with swords by their sides”--as
“disgraceful.”--Life of Sir H. Lawrence, p. 575.
[350] Elgin’s patriotism and generosity in surrendering these
troops were justly extolled by Sir William Peel, the leader of the
Naval Brigade, who said that the Chinese Expedition really relieved
Lucknow.--Walrond’s Letters and Journals of Lord Elgin, p. 188.
[351] Shadwell’s Life of Lord Clyde, Vol. I., p. 405.
[352] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXII.
[353] At Lucknow, after four days’ hard fighting, he had only 122
killed and 414 wounded.
[354] Campbell’s retreat from Lucknow to Cawnpore was managed
with consummate address. But it was censured. The defence of it
is this:--(1), He had to relieve himself from the encumbrance of
the women, children, sick, and wounded; (2), He had to save his
communications, which Windham’s defeat at the Pandoo River had put at
Tantia Topee’s mercy; (3), He could easily come back and take Lucknow;
and (4), he was anxious to make an immediate impression on Rohilkund.
[355] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXV. Feodore was the
name of the Queen’s half-sister.
[356] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXVI.
[357] As to precedents, the eldest daughter of George II. received
a dowry of £80,000, and an annuity of £5,000. But when the Princess
Royal, daughter of George III., married, she was voted a dowry of
£80,000 without any annuity. The Irish Parliament had to vote her an
annuity of £5,000.
[358] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXVI.
[359] In the “Journal de Goncourt: Mémoires des la Vie Littéraire,”
published in 1877, the secret history of the Emperor’s instructions
to Pélissier is told. The Prussian Military Attaché at St. Petersburg
sent to the King of Prussia, through MM. de Gerlach and Niebuhr, the
secret details of the campaign. Manteufel, the King’s Foreign Minister,
desirous of possessing this information which the King kept to himself,
bribed certain persons who had access to these letters to copy them.
Then the French hearing of the matter bribed Manteufel’s agents to let
them have copies also. In this way Napoleon III. discovered that the
Malakoff was the one vulnerable point in the defences, although the
repulse of the 18th of June made most people think it was invulnerable.
[360] This year the great race at Ascot--that for the Gold Cup, which,
by the way, was of silver--was won by Lord Zetland’s “Skirmisher.”
[361] A story used to be told of one Scottish regiment that got into
sad disgrace because of the contempt with which they treated the Cross
of Valour. A goodly number of Crosses were allotted to it, for it had
won exceptional distinction. The superior officers, on being asked to
nominate recipients, said, “Oh, hand the thing over to the subalterns.”
The subalterns said, “The sergeants would probably like to have the
decorations at their disposal.” The sergeants said, “Oh, it would be
best to let the men get them,” and the men, with grim humour, selected
as bravest of the brave, two pioneers, whose duty it had been to go
round with the “greybeards” when the regiment was in action, and serve
out the regulation ration of whisky or rum, as the case might be. Was
this the reason why no member of the Scottish Brigade figures in the
_Annual Register’s_ list of Victoria Crosses given in 1857?
[362] The Queen promptly ordered the Royal Collections to be put at the
disposal of the Exhibition. The Prince Consort suggested a plan for
appealing to private collectors which had the desired effect. He said
that collectors of rank would not shrink from refusing to lend works of
Art when it was widely known that their refusal might mar a national
purpose; and he advised the appeal to be based on the fact that though
England invested more money in Art than any other country, she had done
less than any other for Art education, which such an exhibition might
easily be made to promote. He even sent them a practical proposal for
drawing up a catalogue that would powerfully appeal to the sympathies
of collectors, and to his suggestions the success of the undertaking
was largely due.
[363] It may not be amiss to say that this stinging Memorandum was the
Queen’s reply to a frivolous communication from Lord Palmerston. In it
he met her growing remonstrances by saying that “measures are sometimes
best calculated to succeed which follow each other step by step.” He
further added, rather impudently, that “Viscount Palmerston may perhaps
be permitted to take the liberty of saying that it is fortunate for
those from whose opinions your Majesty differs, that your Majesty is
not in the House of Commons, for they would have had to encounter
a formidable antagonist in argument.”--Martin’s Life of the Prince
Consort, Chap. LXXVIII.
[364] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXI.
[365] The _Post_ was “inspired” by Lady Palmerston at this period.
[366] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. LXXXII.